deaner66

<p><a href="http://uncrate.com/stuff/pentax-q-camera/">http://uncrate.com/stuff/pentax-q-camera/</a></p>

<p>I use a PC, and my brother is a Mac man. I like messing with his Mac, mainly because it is just a little different from a PC. Now, I'm not a computer expert and I'm not one to go buy the latest and greatest stuff just because it's available. </p>

<p>So this is what I see: if money isn't a worry to you, by all means, hit the Mac. But if bang for your buck is more important to you, the PC is a no-brainer. Money is a concern for me, so I choose the value approach.</p>

<p>For the money you spend on a iMac or a MacPro, you can get much more performance and software for a PC. That is just a fact.</p>

<p>I'm not a Microsoft homer, either. I think both Apple and Microsoft are both hard-assed companies that make life for their users much more difficult than it needs to be. Microsoft is a bully and Apple is a snotty, rich kid. </p>

<p>As I've said, I'm not a computer whiz, but I can get around on my PC pretty well. I've had viruses, hardware/software conflict issues, and hated Vista. But I think those issues get blown WAY out of proportion. 99% of the time I use my PC, there is no problem.</p>

<p>And I really like the streamlined approach and looks of the Mac, but I also think their rep is also blown WAY out of proportion. Sometimes I feel like the inflated price of an Apple isn't so much quality as it is the 'hip' factor. But you can't really go wrong using a Mac, either. I will just cost you. </p>

<p>Neither is as great as they want you to believe. </p>

<p>There is also a striking parallel between the Mac/PC debate and the choice we make to use Pentax instead of the more expensive Canikon brands. The Canikon brand has more features, more lenses, and are considered the "pro" brands. And, they are way more expensive. </p>

<p>Are they better? Of course not. It's all in how you look at it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It kills me, but nobody can top Nikon's flash system. Much of it costs through the nose, but the options are there. </p>

<p>I think a smaller company would have many advantages beefing up their flash systems, in this Strobist world. It frustrates me that Pentax is so behind the curve on this issue.</p>

<p>For example, as many of you have said, our cameras simply won't fire past 1/180th. Most other brands will fire past their particular flash sync, only with the black stripe on a part of the image. As someone said, you can still get a workable crop if you plan it out in advance. </p>

<p>But we don't get that option. That kind of sucks. </p>

<p>And don't let anyone tell you otherwise: the faster you can sync a flash, the more options you have. </p>

<p>Anyway, I'm not hating on Pentax. I drank the kool-ad and am here to stay, but sometimes I wish Pentax would aim a litlle higher, even if they don't have the "professional" line. </p>

<p>Well, I'm fun, but I just don't get these things.</p>

<p>I'm not against pushing the boundaries, and it's only a look, but damn, these things look hideous! What's up with the robot on the hot shoe?</p>

<p>Javier, for instance, could take limitless, up-close candid street shots with one of these cameras because no one on the streets would even think it was real. </p>

<p>Maybe, Pentax could try and carve out a niche by making many different camera covers. Maybe camouflage, or a chrome cover, or one that's shaped into a mask, so when you put your eye up to the camera to take the shot, you're behind a Scream mask, or Homer Simpson mask.</p>

<p>OK, maybe I'm coming around. Even though this camera looks like Woody or Buzz Lightyear should be using it, this may be a brilliant marketing idea. Just, please, don't stop with this particular design.</p>

<p>Last one, and the best one, I think. I like it because she looks perfect, and I nailed the flash to the ambient light. It doesn't look like a flash was used. </p><div></div>

<p>This little one wouldn't stop crying for thr family shots, but when her uncle held her, she got really happy--and photogenic, obviously.</p><div></div>

<p>Shots of some friends. Basically, all of my shots are into the mid-day fall sun. SO, I used a flash in my left hand at about 1/8th power to give some directional light that didn't draw attention to a flash being used. <br>

<br />In retrospect, I always think the background could be another stop darker, but overall I'm happy with the results, if only because it was simple.</p><div></div>

<p>Nick Siebers: I feel you, bro, with these old MF jewels. In my experience, all these golden old lenses are not much to speak of wide open. Probably, all brands were the same. The best of these old lenses is never better when they are attached to a tripod when shutter speed is nothing to worry about. With me, I can take 100 shots with an old MF SMC M-A-K, Takumar, Sup Tak, especially a f/3.5 or f/4, and only get five or six great shots. But the great shots, well, they blow anything modern, completely away. It's not often but hey, it happens.</p>

<p>Haig: I LOVE your shots with the 12-24 especially the Roman shot. Robert Colameco's shots with the 10-17 don't look as crisp, or something, because just I like the look and feel of that 12-24 more. And Robert Colameco, your B/W street shot is fabulous. The 12-24 lens just looks sharper. Anyone else have an opinion about these two lenses?</p>

<p>Yuri UKhov: Your shot of the young ballplayer is maybe the best bokeh I think I have ever seen. Justin, you didn't really like the DA*300, did you? Without making me go back and read your review, which I DID read, why didn't you like this lens? I just remember you saying how much better the 200mm f.2.8 was. See, I DID read the reviews.</p>

<p>Justin, nice b/w shots, particularly the starfish shot.</p>

<p>We were walking the dog today discussing how the foliage in the Kansas City area is pretty bland this year. A lot of the trees still have green leaves, the oaks, the maples; but many of the trees have dropped their leaves, or never really got very colorful, like the sweet gums and the dogwoods. </p>

<p>Now, I'm not a botanist; but I'm not blind either. This year, here, doesn't seem all that colorful. And in these parts, fall really fills things out.</p>

<p>I know the northeast gets the big attention, but when the conditions are right here, it is spectacular, and rivals anything, anywhere else. Obviously, the best fall shows are like a firework display, when things go off together, or one after another.</p>

<p>Things could still change, I guess. But my experience says we are in a weak, desaturated fall.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>And finally, my wife and I went to the next to last Kansas City Royal's game against Tampa Bay. It was very cold that night and, of course, the Royals lost, but you can never go wrong watching a game in this stadium. </p>

<p>Did I say it was cold?</p><div></div>

<p>This was a wedding I did back in September. This is just a Lightroom preset I frequently use on favorite B/W shots. </p>

<p>Mom and Grandma kissing the bride just before the ceremony.</p><div></div>

<p>It's been awhile since I've posted. Still taking pictures, but haven't had the time to do much with them.</p>

<p>This is from some family portraits I did a few months ago. This shot was the Dad's idea and it is one I intend to keep in my brain, because almost everyone likes it. Who am I to argue?</p>

<div></div>

<p>Yep, the SMC 50 f/1.4--no matter the date or series--is a real gem. I have the FA model, a Super Takumar, a SMC-M and a SMC-A f/1.7. Optically speaking, these lenses are all the same, in my eyes. With me, convenience becomes the most important thing. So typically, I will use the FA 50 if I want a 50mm lens on my K10D.</p>

<p>The trouble is, I bought the 50-135mm zoom the same time I got the FA50mm. And even factoring the extra stop of light I get from the 50, convenience wins out with the extra range and weather-proofing of the 50-135mm. But that is just one users opinion.</p>

<p>About all I ever found lacking in the 50mm f/1.4 is the build. The FA has a plastic, cheap feel to it. That is only the newer versions, however. My old 50s are all built to outlast the user. That's how they feel, anyway.</p>

<p>You love the bokeh, which is stellar, but I always loved how sharp these lenses were between f/4 and f/8.</p>

<p>You've seen the shape of the pool, so this is what gets me the most. Somehow, the floatie has survived two midwestern summers and winters, and still, it is filled with air.</p>

<p>K10D, SMC-DA16-45mm, polarizer</p><div></div>

<p>In the shallow end, on the faded and broken bottom, lies an old pair of goggles.</p>

<p>K10D, SMC-*DA50-135mm, polarizer</p><div></div>

<p>Shots of an old pool. It's been two years since this pool has been used.</p>

<p>K10D, SMC-DA 16-45mm, polarizer</p><div></div>

<p>If it were me, I would lower the ambient exposure so the road doesn't become a secondary skin tone. See how the road blends into her over exposed left shoulder? That's distracting. Knock down the exposure a stop or so and use a fill flash to bring her back up. That should separate her from the background and make her pop a bit.<br>

Use the criticism wisely and don't take it personally. Most of these people have great chops and you would be wise to at least hear their opinions.</p>

<p>Jordan, hindsight and all that, but a reflector or a little flash fill would make an enormous difference in what you would have to work with. Her right side is just too dark. In Lightroom, Fill Light might bring some of her right side back. To me, that right side is just too dark.</p>

<p>As far as the WB is concerned, I don't think you are very far off. Your correction eliminates the blue cast without corrupting the rest of the shot. Howard, your correction looks WAY too orange to me. The original picture has more fill light problems than WB issues, IMO.</p>

<p>I forgot to mention, my second shot is a HDR shot. Even with my Neutral Density filter, I couldn't come close to getting the foreground and the sky on the same page like the shot that I combined in Photomatix.</p>

<p>Finally, you have to love man's ingenuity, resourcefulness and his stupidity. Here is a local golf course, built next to some new homes, and all on top of a former landfill. <em>"What's that smell, Ma?"</em></p>

<p>So they burn off the methane that naturally seeps from a former landfill. Surely there is a way to capture or use this gas in a productive way?<em><br /></em></p><div></div>

<p>Here is a sunrise shot in an urban KC park. The mosquitoes were beyond annoying; they were menacing. It surprises me that a mosquito can't be seen on the lens.</p><div></div>

<p>Justin, love the river shot. Since I almost always use a tripod anymore, I never take off my polarizing filters. At worst, it adds more time to the exposure, but at its best it kills reflections and separates colors, instantly creating depth. A landscape photographers best friend.</p>

<p>Javier, looks like Hollywood Blvd. Where else?</p>

<p>Jeremiah, nice profile. It has a <em>L.A. Confidential</em> look. You can soften the shadow by simply stepping forward a few feet away from the fence. But it ain't bad the way it is...</p>

<p>Somanna, really cool bridge shot. It appears that you're hanging in thin air to get this shot. If you can get this angle, you're golden, baby.</p>

<p>As for me, I've been on the outskirts of Kansas City. Kansas City is like most big cities, except it's smaller. But surrounding the city, is farmland. You don't have to go far to find it. And sometimes, it can be a nice change of pace.</p>

<p>Here is a shot of a farm just off the Kansas/Missouri border, Kansas side.</p><div></div>

<p>Steve T: As I said above, I have the DA*50-135mm SDM zoom. And overall, it is my best lens. The SDM doesn't seem like it focuses faster than the non-SDM lenses, but it is completely silent. That's a nice feature, but it would be much better if it focused faster. Optically, this baby is top notch--it's as sharp as anything thing out there.</p>

<p>I've heard mixed reviews about reliability and motor issues. I only have one SDM lens, so I can only tell you that I've had no problems at all. From what I remember, there was more problems with the SDM DA*16-50 2.8. I don't know what that means, but I'm glad I bought this lens.</p>

<p>Jeremiah: Great examples. Like I was saying, it isn't as hard as it seems. Especially if you add another flash. What I like best about this technique, is how dramatic the results can be, particularly with the hard flash. Your second shot is a perfect example.</p>

<p>Nice shots and series. I hope my copy doesn't start to squeal, because it is the best lens in my bag.</p>